The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Wow...so he lost his first parliamentary vote.
He fails to build a cross parliamentary concensus on an issue that the Tories would generally have supported if only on the principle that it'd see brown people imprisoned for no reason.
He tries to bully his own party into voting for it because "I want it".
He presents no evidence as to why the police need the 90 day detention, yet says "The need for this is clear".
He says that police having to renew it every 7 days is a safeguard, but forgets to mention that under the Anti-Terror laws, police can keep the "evidence" secret and not reveal it to the accused's legal rep.
He gets the chance to work out a compromise, but refuses to even countenance it as it means not getting his own way.
And he doesn't even acknowledge that locking people up for 3 months might radicalise otherwise moderate people.
Not forgetting the fact that he hasn't bothered to present an alternative plan of "hey, why don't we give the police more resources so that they can do their job, rather than constantly cutting back on them in order to line our own pockets".
And what is his response? Utter fury that he doesn't get his way. The squealing of a petulant child who has found that the rest of the kids in the playground won't do what he wants. Whatever your opinions of the 90 day thing, I can't be the only one who finds this hilarious, can I?
He fails to build a cross parliamentary concensus on an issue that the Tories would generally have supported if only on the principle that it'd see brown people imprisoned for no reason.
He tries to bully his own party into voting for it because "I want it".
He presents no evidence as to why the police need the 90 day detention, yet says "The need for this is clear".
He says that police having to renew it every 7 days is a safeguard, but forgets to mention that under the Anti-Terror laws, police can keep the "evidence" secret and not reveal it to the accused's legal rep.
He gets the chance to work out a compromise, but refuses to even countenance it as it means not getting his own way.
And he doesn't even acknowledge that locking people up for 3 months might radicalise otherwise moderate people.
Not forgetting the fact that he hasn't bothered to present an alternative plan of "hey, why don't we give the police more resources so that they can do their job, rather than constantly cutting back on them in order to line our own pockets".
And what is his response? Utter fury that he doesn't get his way. The squealing of a petulant child who has found that the rest of the kids in the playground won't do what he wants. Whatever your opinions of the 90 day thing, I can't be the only one who finds this hilarious, can I?
Page:
The evidence has to be there in the first place.
This about preventing terrorist attacks not preparing for a person's trial.
This about preventing terrorist attacks not preparing for a person's trial.
Hedfix wrote:
> Unsurprisingly I've already read that.
>
> That's why I said the evidence should have to be presented to a judge
> at set periods of time for the judge to decide if there is enough
> evidence for them to continue to detain the suspect.
So the judge will make a decision based solely on evidence presented by what is, in effect, the prosecution? Whilst the defence have no access to this info and cannot prepare any sort of defence?
> Unsurprisingly I've already read that.
>
> That's why I said the evidence should have to be presented to a judge
> at set periods of time for the judge to decide if there is enough
> evidence for them to continue to detain the suspect.
So the judge will make a decision based solely on evidence presented by what is, in effect, the prosecution? Whilst the defence have no access to this info and cannot prepare any sort of defence?
My opinion on here is influenced a bit due to the fact that one of my previous jobs was in law and it was so depressing and frustrating seeing people go free on technicalities or getting off lightly for the crimes they had been convicted of.
In general laws in this country are far too lenient and favour criminals instead of victims and if you couple that with people who bang on about human rights it shows just what a sham the legal system is in this country.
The police won't arrest any person they think might be involved in terrosism as that will distract them from the real terrorists they will go for the ones that show strong signs of being involved - these preachers who openly condone terrorist attacks and say that things like hurricanes are gods way of showing he's displeased with us and we deserve them.
Assuming this 90 day law is well and truly buried I just hope that when suspects come before courts they're remanded in custody for a sufficient period of time in order that the police can do their jobs without constantly being blocked by people who wine on about human rights being violated.
In general laws in this country are far too lenient and favour criminals instead of victims and if you couple that with people who bang on about human rights it shows just what a sham the legal system is in this country.
The police won't arrest any person they think might be involved in terrosism as that will distract them from the real terrorists they will go for the ones that show strong signs of being involved - these preachers who openly condone terrorist attacks and say that things like hurricanes are gods way of showing he's displeased with us and we deserve them.
Assuming this 90 day law is well and truly buried I just hope that when suspects come before courts they're remanded in custody for a sufficient period of time in order that the police can do their jobs without constantly being blocked by people who wine on about human rights being violated.
Light wrote:
> He says that police having to renew it every 7 days is a safeguard,
> but forgets to mention that under the Anti-Terror laws, police can
> keep the "evidence" secret and not reveal it to the
> accused's legal rep.
Unsurprisingly I've already read that.
That's why I said the evidence should have to be presented to a judge at set periods of time for the judge to decide if there is enough evidence for them to continue to detain the suspect.
> He says that police having to renew it every 7 days is a safeguard,
> but forgets to mention that under the Anti-Terror laws, police can
> keep the "evidence" secret and not reveal it to the
> accused's legal rep.
Unsurprisingly I've already read that.
That's why I said the evidence should have to be presented to a judge at set periods of time for the judge to decide if there is enough evidence for them to continue to detain the suspect.
Your Honour wrote:
> The impression I get, especially from Charles Clarke, is that he
> thinks the bill was defeated just because people want to see Blair
> lose a vote.
I think there's some truth in that. When it comes to matters of national security and wars, they all unusually fall in line like a set of synchronized swimmers.
> The impression I get, especially from Charles Clarke, is that he
> thinks the bill was defeated just because people want to see Blair
> lose a vote.
I think there's some truth in that. When it comes to matters of national security and wars, they all unusually fall in line like a set of synchronized swimmers.
Hedfix wrote:
> 90 days should be the absolute maximum BUT the police should be able
> to show a judge sufficient evidence of the detainee being involved in
> terrorism at regualr intervals.
>
> In the early days this proof has to be minor, perhpas grounds for
> suspicion but the longer they are incarcerated a higher level of
> evidence should be needed to keep them detained.
Light wrote:
> He says that police having to renew it every 7 days is a safeguard,
> but forgets to mention that under the Anti-Terror laws, police can
> keep the "evidence" secret and not reveal it to the
> accused's legal rep.
> 90 days should be the absolute maximum BUT the police should be able
> to show a judge sufficient evidence of the detainee being involved in
> terrorism at regualr intervals.
>
> In the early days this proof has to be minor, perhpas grounds for
> suspicion but the longer they are incarcerated a higher level of
> evidence should be needed to keep them detained.
Light wrote:
> He says that police having to renew it every 7 days is a safeguard,
> but forgets to mention that under the Anti-Terror laws, police can
> keep the "evidence" secret and not reveal it to the
> accused's legal rep.
90 days should be the absolute maximum BUT the police should be able to show a judge sufficient evidence of the detainee being involved in terrorism at regualr intervals.
In the early days this proof has to be minor, perhpas grounds for suspicion but the longer they are incarcerated a higher level of evidence should be needed to keep them detained.
In the early days this proof has to be minor, perhpas grounds for suspicion but the longer they are incarcerated a higher level of evidence should be needed to keep them detained.
The impression I get, especially from Charles Clarke, is that he thinks the bill was defeated just because people want to see Blair lose a vote. Sky news says: He also claimed that opposition parties were "entirely motivated by opportunism and a desire to beat the Governmentp".
How blinkered is this man to think that? Can't he just admit that the idea itself is wrong, rather than try to blame it on something else?
How blinkered is this man to think that? Can't he just admit that the idea itself is wrong, rather than try to blame it on something else?
Smedlos, they would lock up anyone without charge if they felt like it.
That's just plain wrong.
That's just plain wrong.
Smedlos wrote:
> I can't see him letting this lie. OK he got 28 days but it's still a
> big defeat for him and I bet it'll be forced through pretty much like
> the foxhunting ban was.
Nope; the foxhunting ban was forced through because only the Lords blocked it. The 90 day thing was blocked by the Commons.
Also, I can't help but notice that you're arguments for the 90 day detention all seem to mention "If the police have sufficient evidence" (along, of course, with a sizeable dose of utterly unsupported if's and but's). If they had that evidence, and sufficient resources, why wouldn't they be able to bring charges within 28 days?
> I can't see him letting this lie. OK he got 28 days but it's still a
> big defeat for him and I bet it'll be forced through pretty much like
> the foxhunting ban was.
Nope; the foxhunting ban was forced through because only the Lords blocked it. The 90 day thing was blocked by the Commons.
Also, I can't help but notice that you're arguments for the 90 day detention all seem to mention "If the police have sufficient evidence" (along, of course, with a sizeable dose of utterly unsupported if's and but's). If they had that evidence, and sufficient resources, why wouldn't they be able to bring charges within 28 days?
Page: